Rapidly circulated across the social networking site, heaps of users found their news feeds flooded with posts claiming that those who would display them would allegedly get additional copyright and privacy protection.

While there were those who just raised their eyebrows and ignored the posts, there were naturally Internet users who hurriedly sought to invalidate the premise. Despite which, there are still some out there posting the same message last Tuesday, “keeping calm and carrying on.”

Facebook, for its part, has issued a statement stipulating that the text posts are a hoax: “Anyone who uses Facebook owns and controls the content and information they post, as stated in our terms. They control how that content and information is shared. That is our policy, and it always has been.”

As for the Facebook policy update email with the subject line: “Updates to Data Use Policy Statement of Rights and Responsibilities” (screen shot below), that is very much valid and truly issued by Facebook.

Note, however, that the Facebook policy update does not in any way constitute heinous use of your personal information, photos, graphics, videos, etc.

On the off chance that the said social networking giant would decide to go after your baby photo, would a cut-and-paste status be truly able to stop it?

Snopes advises: “Facebook users cannot retroactively negate any of the privacy or copyright terms they agreed to when they signed up for their Facebook accounts nor can they unilaterally alter or contradict any new privacy or copyright terms instituted by Facebook simply by posting a contrary legal notice on their Facebook walls. ” This is true whether Facebook is a publicly traded company or not.

The new policy will permit Facebook to acquire info about you ”from our affiliates or our advertising partners” (with whom you’ve already decided to share your personal info, whether or not you were paying attention when you clicked on the button), to “improve the quality of ads.” Heaps of sites already do this, matching your data (which again, you’ve supplied, technically of your own choosing) to show you ads you would most likely be keen on, and to report to those advertisers how you did respond.

Facebook is also no longer allowing you to vote on policy changes — a privilege launched in 2009 to a constantly unimpressive reaction from users. NBC News reported earlier this year that “a vote on privacy changes resulted in hardly anyone voting.“ The rules may, however, be the culprit as ”hardly anyone” actually amounted to 342,632 votes at the time. A large number, but far from the third of its total users that Facebook required to vote before it would registers dissent.

Facebook made a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission last year over the collosal privacy reducation in 2009 that hinders the social network “from making any further deceptive privacy claims.” The social networking site is also now compelled to ”get consumer’s approval before changing the way it shares data, and requires that it obtain periodic assessments of its privacy practices by independent, third-party auditors for the next 20 years.”

Thus, those emails that consequently send everyone into a status-update cut-and-paste frenzy. If you were one of those who fell for it, it’s all right. You’re human, you value your privacy, and you were certainly not alone.

Do you think there is a way to take control of your personal data when social media is concerned? How do you tell a hoax from something that is real?

Based on the recent MYOB Business Monitor‘s survey of over 1000 small to medium enterprises, New Zealand businesses aren’t too keen on using social media as compared to the previous year.

MYOB reports that only a fifth of the New Zealand firms now use social media, which is almost a quarter less than in August 2011.

The study concluded that businesses are grappling with time to find and learn to use the newest online tools. Allegedly, only 16 percent have a profile on Facebook or Google+, while 17 percent are on LinkedIn and a mere 4 percent on Twitter.

The survey also discovered that only 10 percent of New Zealand firms have a business blog.

On the other side of the pole, MYOB asserted that businesses are more keen to now use the online transactions, like making purchases from suppliers.

Julian Smith, MYOB general manager for New Zealand, said companies got good results from using social media as part of their “marketing mix”, but seem to be struggling to maintain a long-term active social media presence. ”[They] don’t have the time or the resources to manage a wide variety of online marketing tools.”

Tim Howell, marketing manager of Intergen, a 350-person Wellington information technology company, advised businesses using social media for external marketing should think through their strategy.

“A tweet here or a Facebook post there isn’t going to create any sustainable presence to engage customers, which is what it is all about. It requires a consistent effort, a degree of responsiveness and willingness to be open. That fits with the culture of many organisations, but some it doesn’t. If you don’t plan and resource for that you probably won’t achieve the results you are looking for,” he explained.

Nonetheless, firms are increasingly using “enterprise micro-blogging tool” Yammer to acquire and share information within their companies.

Howell disclosed, “We have been using it internally since 2008 and it is a great short “bursty” way of sharing information with colleagues without going ‘all-out’ and doing a blog post.”

Vouchers worth $400 or $500 have quickly circulated due to seemingly endorsements from Facebook friends. Plus the fact that retailers usually do run on their official pages real gift voucher competitions.

“Please be aware there are some possible email, survey, website and Facebook scams currently circulating using the Woolworths name and logo,” says a Woolworths spokesperson.

The fraudulent competition lead Facebook users to a Website like Woolworthsfree.net or harveynorman.org, allegedly offering free gift vouchers in exchange of following three “simple steps”.

A counter appears on the site to supposedly show that the vouchers are quickly running out in real time, along with “thank you” comments from seemingly genuine Facebook users, and a portion asserting that more than 6 million people have liked the page so far.

Software architect Troy Hunt, who exposes online scams on his blog, wrote that the “sense of urgency”, apparent popularity, and air of authenticity attracts unsuspecting victims.

Hunt believes the scammer was located in Albania, which means it would be difficult for authorities to tackle the grifter.

“People in Australia being scammed by a guy in Albania using a server hosted in Germany. Who do the cops speak to,” Hunt wrote. “My experience talking with the authorities about the call centre scammers shows that things like this just get filed away in the ‘too hard’ basket.”

Since victims are asked to share the scam with friends to claim the “prize”, such naturally allowed it to rapidly spread online.

Woolworths, for its part, first alerted customers about the bogus vouchers months ago, but has recently added another warning on its Facebook page as customers continue to be deceived and end up blaming the retailer.

Woolworths states they would never ask customers for personal or banking details in unsolicited communications. The retailer stresses that all of its official competitions are run from its own Facebook page and are also posted on the promotions and competitions page of woolworths.com.au.

Coles issues a warning on its Facebook page, as well, informing customers of the hoax.

Have you encountered any of these online scams? Did you find out later that they were fake? What did you do about them?

Rebranding is more than just a logo change. It involves developing a new position in the minds of stakeholders, competitors, and customers; be it to differentiate itself from the rest, to discard a negative perception, or as a response to market share loss or emergent situation. It requires an overhaul of the branding strategy: message, goals, culture. Naturally, rebranding should also cover your social media profiles. Due Diligence Probably the biggest social media mistake to date of a “big brand” was made by Netflix, when no one from their marketing team made sure that the company owned the Twitter ID Qwikster prior to launch the DVD-by-mail service Qwikster. When users tried to follow @Qwikster on Twitter, they found a high school guy who tweeted about drugs and frequently swore. Although he wasn’t connected with Netflix, a bad name and poor judgement was consequently linked with the Netflix brand. To avoid a similar faux pas, carry out the following tasks before even hinting to your audience about the potential for a rebranding:

Acquire the domain name of your new brand name’s URL;

Check and ensure that the Facebook Page and Twitter handle you want associated with your new brand are still available; and

Hold focus groups with current customers (or members/volunteers for not-for-profits) to find any unseen issues with your intended rebranding.

It is important for you to do this research before you go on with your rebranding plan. This will certainly minimise potential errors.

Recognise Restrictions
In the process of rebranding, note the limitations that would interfere with your changing your profile. Although these restrictions should not have an impact on your ability to rebrand your social media profiles, it would be best to consider them before going through the change.

Facebook — as of writing, this social media giant does not allow page owners to modify the names of their pages once they have acquired 200 likes. This measure was put in place to avert the buying and selling of fans. It would seem that the simplest solution is just create a new page and encourage current fans to like the new one. For some genuine branding cases, some users have reported being able to reach contacts within Facebook’s customer support system who changed brand names manually. Results will naturally differ, but bear in mind that requesting followers to like a new page will cause loss in your fan base.

Twitter — allows the change of username and profile information with ease. Just log into your profile and go to the Settings area. Change the current username listed in your account to you what you’d like it to be, instead (if it is available), and click Save changes. Go to Edit Profile afterward to modify your Twitter image, name, URL, and bio. Such changes will be reflected automatically.

It would, nonetheless, be wise to conduct an outreach campaign to educate followers on why such changes were done and what your new brand means.

If you will use Twitter a lot, best to also get your custom short domain, for both branding and getting all you tweet into that 140-character space.

YouTube — does not allow users to alter their registered usernames, but you can create vanity URLsthat would “mask” your old channel’s content to show the rebranded URL. To edit your YouTube channel, click here.

LinkedIn — makes changing your profile in Groups and Company Pages a bit tricky. Currently, Group identities can only be changed a maximum of five times, which includes changing your Group name and Group logo. Nip this in the bud by making sure your Group logo is ready before you change your Group name to lessen the number of changes you will need to do. What’s more, LinkedIn Company pages can only be modified by contacting the LinkedIn Help Center directly — patience would be needed from your end since it might take a while for them to get back to you. To speed things up a bit, give all the necessary info behind the change and confirm that you own both the current account and new branded identity (and are the authorised rep).

Once done, go over your updated page to make sure that any references to your old identity have been deleted.

Clear Communication
Customer communications should remain your main priority all throughout the rebranding process. See to it that your communications plan would include:

A video about why you are rebranding. Knowing and understanding why a company is altering its image helps customers accept the transition easier.

Stress what is and is not changing. Is it just a colour change (e.g., New Zealand’s National Bank after it was acquired by ANZ), a logo change (e.g., Twitter), change of culture altogether (e.g., Lifetime channel that was formerly made-for-TV movies), or much more. You have to be upfront about it.

Use as many platforms as you can. Informed customers make happier customers, so post announcements on your rebranding on your website, blog, all your social media profiles, your email newsletter, and any other online site your customers regularly patronise.

Don’t expect that your customers will be on board with your rebranding process initially (e.g., several YSL aficionados are still seething about the name change to Saint Laurent Paris). Most people are by nature are resistant to change and will react to the change with fear or skepticism or even ire (e.g., every time Facebook makes an update, like those who protested against Timeline).

Nevertheless, good communication will help minimise the impact and establish goodwill with your customers as you rebrand your image.

Have you rebranded your business and included your social media profiles? What positive outcomes or learnings have you encountered in the process?

The presupposition in New Zealand (NZ) is that a Facebook page won’t be regarded as an advertising medium, which means it is not within ASA’s jurisdiction.

In the guidance note that was published last week, NZ ASA notes there may be particular instances wherein user-generated comment is advertising and gives some “preliminary areas of enquiry” that it will use to evaluate such.

ASA will examine whether the advertiser originally entreated individuals to submit the user-generated content in question and consequently took it on and incorporated it within their own advertising. Also if an individual provided the advertiser, unsolicited, with material that the advertiser later used within their own advertising.

ASA will likewise investigate if the advertiser solicited the user generated content. Say example, through an invitation to enter a competition, wherein such content was posted on the site.

The note adds a warning on the risks of retweeting customer tweets (which may be misleading), as well as requires people who are paid to tweet support for a product or service to add the #ad hashtag to make the endorsement obvious.

King & Wood Mallesons partner John Swinson informed SmartCompany that NZ ASA’s guidance stipulated some factors that may be taken into consideration in Australia when evaluation whether or not a business is responsible for comments on its Facebook page.

“In Australia there has not been enough analysis of this issue and so it is still not very granular – there have been broad statements,” he said.

According to Swinson, the interesting part of the New Zealand guidance comes in the preliminary areas of enquiry. “In some ways you can say it arises through factors that could be taken into consideration although they may not be the only factors.”

He cited that if you did not solicit the comment on your Facebook page and did not adopt it then, Swinson says, that is an argument you should make as to why you should not be held responsible for such.

“It’s the same in Australia: If a user puts up a comment and you are not aware of it and it is up for three days, would you be responsible? If you saw what was there and said ‘I disagree with it’, then that is not adopting the comment, ” he expounded.

Swinson added that these issues have not been considered in Australia. Although the ASB has found some businesses in breach of their Facebook pages, he explained that the bureau has also taken into consideration when that business tries to do the right thing.

“We have not had a situation in place with someone out there with proper procedures and trying to do the right thing being held responsible,” he said.

As for Twitter, Swinson commented that although Australia has no formal guidance on the use of the said social media channel, the New Zealand position on sponsored tweets is not far off the legal situation there at the present time.

“We don’t have formal guidance. But if you are looking at the law, if you were out pretending to be someone who is independent, and in fact, you were being paid to say something that would potentially be misleading and deceptive in breach of the Consumer Act. The issue with Twitter is that you only have so many characters and so it is hard to give full disclosure.”

What do you think about ASA’s guidance on user-generated content and sponsored tweets? Have you ever adopted any user-generated content in the past and incorporated such into your advertising? Or have you retweeted customer tweets?

We mentioned earlier that businesses and not-for-profit organisations are continuously turning to social media, but are finding it a challenge to come across examples of policies appropriate for them.

We started in Part 1 to provide you a guide on how to create your own social media policy and here’s the continuation of such.

Privacy
Like it or not, we now belong to a period in time wherein content sharing is easily done and encouraged. Inadvertently, privacy seems to be alarmingly overlooked or worse, ignored. Admittedly, the tools play a large role in the problem. Complaints on privacy issues on Facebook and Twitter perennially arise, but it is pertinent for you to review your own company privacy and permissions policies, particularly if you are engaged in children or healthcare services.

Begin by looking into your existing policies for related details. When are you allowed to use photos of of clients, names of children? Do you need their consent beforehand? Editor your policies and bring up to date your waiver forms to include the social media platforms you plan to use. There is, after all, a significant difference between acquiring someone’s consent to use their photo on a website or brochure, and actually using that same photo on your Facebook page or on a blog, especially since photos and videos posted online can and will be vastly shared.

Right to Content
It is always best to examine how you credit the content you share and how the content you’ve produced is copyrighted. Keeping “complete” control of your content should be measured against the value of sharing. Some not-for-profits copyright all material and require permission for others to share any of them, while others take on a more open manner that allows others to freely re-post. The latter is called Creative Commons license, which permits the maintenance of some control over how content is used through set guidelines for attribution, and if other users can alter your content or use it commercially.

As to which approach would be right for you, it would mostly depend on the nature of your organisation, and if you’re keen on being open or more concerned about legal issues. Do note, though, that it goes two ways — you should also follow the rules and get consent before re-posting content you did not make yourself. It is, of course, quite all right to provide a link to something, as long as you don’t pass the content off as your own. Do not, however, assume anything you find online can be re-posted freely.

Personal and Professional
Social media provides the venue to put a human face on your business, making it easier to connect with customers who can become great endorsers. More often than not, you would want your social media presence to be as personal as it can be. You can, nonetheless, encounter problems when the line between the personal lives of your staff and your company’s goals gets muddled.

Define boundaries in advance so you can prevent potential problems. What kind of personal information can be posted to your organisation’s social media platforms? Are only mission-related posts permitted, or can your staff share personal opinions or information on their milestones like birthdays and pregnancy? You have to ensure your staff understands and accepts how the policy relates to their personal use of social media. If they link to your organisational page or talk about the what goes on in your company on their personal pages, their followers might not be able to tell their personal posts apart from those of your organisation.

You can’t possibly impose on your staff on what to do during their free time, but you can persuade them to abide by organisational best practises and to personify your company’s culture and goals. Legal parameters in this field are developing almost at the same speed that technology does. For any concerns about this part of your policy, it would be wise to consult your legal counsel to make sure the risks are defined and that the proper methods of preventing them are put into place.

Even if your staff don’t say on their Twitter feeds or Facebook pages that they work for your organisation, there will still be a good number of people who would know that they do. Thus, it would be wise to include in your policy staff training on the effective use of social media that would require them to follow strict privacy settings on personal pages. “What would your mother think” as perspective when posting would be a good attitude to get them into. It is up to you, though, to decide whether it would be necessary to impose how personal pages would be reflected on your organisation as a whole, and to define to your staff how to separate it from their personal social media use.

Your Policy
You won’t be able to predict or protect your business against all potential issues, but being proactive and careful in the creation of a policy can help make sure that your company will benefit most out of its social media efforts.

Establishing your team, identifying the right individuals that would represent all important stakeholders would be the first step. Ask and answer the questions stipulated in our blog posts (both parts 1 and 2) to get the ball rolling. Ask other questions specific to your organisation’s nature and culture.

Do you already have your own social media policy? How effective has it been?